Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You could have saved a lot of effort by simply answering the question. Does everybody have to subscribe to whatever Dawkins says?
I thought I did simply answer the question. My post you quoted in its entirety was largely directed to cb2008. You asked about New Atheism and whether there was any difference between it and Old Atheism. New Atheism is a distinct and noisy subculture of atheism, and Richard Dawkins has been its noisy Pied Piper. Most New Atheists do subscribe to most everything Dawkins says, or did until recently. Dawkins is entirely dismissive of any and all woo-woo, and I guarantee he was not amused by the Kent University study. As I pointed out, more serious atheists have heavily criticized him.
I thought I did simply answer the question. My post you quoted in its entirety was largely directed to cb2008. You asked about New Atheism and whether there was any difference between it and Old Atheism. New Atheism is a distinct and noisy subculture of atheism, and Richard Dawkins has been its noisy Pied Piper. Most New Atheists do subscribe to most everything Dawkins says, or did until recently. Dawkins is entirely dismissive of any and all woo-woo, and I guarantee he was not amused by the Kent University study. As I pointed out, more serious atheists have heavily criticized him.
What makes a person a New Atheist? Is that just an atheist that speaks out too much and doesn't know his place?
What makes a person a New Atheist? Is that just an atheist that speaks out too much and doesn't know his place?
Hardly. New Atheism is a well-defined and well-understood movement. I can tell you're fascinated, so I will refer you to the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, https://iep.utm.edu/n-atheis/. Here are the first two paragraphs:
The New Atheists
The New Atheists are authors of early twenty-first century books promoting atheism. These authors include Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, and Christopher Hitchens. The “New Atheist” label for these critics of religion and religious belief emerged out of journalistic commentary on the contents and impacts of their books. A standard observation is that New Atheist authors exhibit an unusually high level of confidence in their views. Reviewers have noted that these authors tend to be motivated by a sense of moral concern and even outrage about the effects of religious beliefs on the global scene. It is difficult to identify anything philosophically unprecedented in their positions and arguments, but the New Atheists have provoked considerable controversy with their body of work.
In spite of their different approaches and occupations (only Dennett is a professional philosopher), the New Atheists tend to share a general set of assumptions and viewpoints. These positions constitute the background theoretical framework that is known as the New Atheism. The framework has a metaphysical component, an epistemological component, and an ethical component. Regarding the metaphysical component, the New Atheist authors share the central belief that there is no supernatural or divine reality of any kind. The epistemological component is their common claim that religious belief is irrational. The moral component is the assumption that there is a universal and objective secular moral standard. This moral component sets them apart from other prominent historical atheists such as Nietzsche and Sartre, and it plays a pivotal role in their arguments because it is used to conclude that religion is bad in various ways, although Dennett is more reserved than the other three.
Personally I've never read any atheistic books. I've also never watched atheist tv, documentaries, or listened to podcasts on atheism.
Christians seem to think there has to be some form of preaching for an atheist to become an atheist. If they have their bible and their preachers and their church services then we must have some sort of equivalent.
Cruithne is correct. Atheism is a lack of belief in god(s). That's all.
Any other beliefs, or lack thereof, is irrelevant.
The New Atheism is an aggressive anti-religion atheist proselytizing movement popularized by Richard Dawkins and his cronies over the past 20 years or so. The large majority of New Atheists are quite young and embrace the New Atheism at pretty much the level at which teenyboppers once embraced The Beatles. It has lost much of its steam, and Dawkins has lost much of his former luster because he just became too foaming-at-the-mouth crazy for even some of his followers to stomach.
There are so many different definitions of new atheism, often contradictory, it would appear most people called new atheists are not. In fact one clown provided so many different definitions on this forum that it was impossible for new atheism to even exist.
But once again we get new atheism used as an ad hominem instead of looking at the actual arguments they use.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irkle Berserkle
The New Atheism was and is widely criticized by thoughtful atheists - people of the caliber of atheist philosopher Thomas Nagel - who recognized that it was turning a serious philosophical position into an embarrassing clown show.
Lol, philosophers are turning philosophy into a clown show. But why do creationists always bring Nagel into the conversation instead of looking at the actual arguments?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irkle Berserkle
Honestly, I think it's what I suggested. I believe much of modern atheism has essentially nothing to do with the existence or nonexistence of a deity. I think it's (1) a fad, just as Christianity was during my university days, ...
Why can it not be both, a fad AND the existence or nonexistence of a deity?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irkle Berserkle
... and (2) a lifestyle choice. Atheism fits nicely into the cultural shift whereby Judeo-Christian morality is fast collapsing if not long gone; as Dostoevsky wrote, "Without God, everything is permitted."
Something a fictional character said in a book written by an author who had his characters say things that often were not true (as here) to explore philosophical and religious themes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irkle Berserkle
Although I am surprised that a significant portion of atheists claim belief in things like supernatural beings and forces of good and evil, the obvious disconnect just shows me that it's really not a reasoned position about the existence or nonexistence of a deity at all.
Yes, we have explained this before, many atheists do not think deeply about their lack of belief, basing it only on religions such as Christianity making extraordinary claims that we do not observe in everyday life.
We all use subconscious reasoning, as do many atheists. I have explained this before.
And how on earth can a conclusion about the existence or nonexistence of a deity NOT be about the existence or nonexistence of a deity?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irkle Berserkle
The indoctrination of the two or three generations below mine has been sufficiently effective that many people have never really given the existence of God or the related issues any more thought than they give the Tooth Fairy. "I'm an atheist!" has essentially no meaning other than "I don't believe childish nonsense!" - which is why these ostensible atheists see no disconnect in believing what serious atheists have traditionally regarded as woo-woo. It means no more than "Obviously, I don't believe in the Tooth Fairy or God - but, sure, I do believe in astrology, supernatural beings, forces of good and evil, and karma because they aren't childish nonsense like God and the Tooth Fairy."
Yes, basic atheism, as we have explained to you before. One must ask why you have been fighting about something you actually accept.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irkle Berserkle
If I'm flummoxed, it's by the prevailing atheism on C-D forums, where the big defense seems to "Don't accuse us of having any convictions about the nonexistence of God! We just disbelieve in a vacuum, for no reason other than we think a deity is childish nonsense. Our atheism has no real impact on our lives." I think this reflects what I've said about the New Atheism. Based on my past interactions with serious internet atheists, this attitude of "Mindless and Proud of It" isn't what I was expecting and is kind of disorienting.
Again you are confused between our explanations what some atheists believe, and what we believe. Perhaps because you do not take the time to read what people write, as your knowledge about everything appears to be very superficial.
The New Atheism is an aggressive anti-religion atheist proselytizing movement popularized by Richard Dawkins and his cronies over the past 20 years or so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irkle Berserkle
Hardly. New Atheism is a well-defined and well-understood movement.
But we have to pretend the New Atheism is something Irkle made up because he doesn't know what he's talking about. There is no definable New Atheist movement. It's something Irkle made up to "divide us." The ignorance you folks so cheerfully display is almost breathtaking.
Precisely nothing I said suggested there was any great substantive difference between the New Atheist movement and previous versions of atheism, although there are differences as the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy notes.
I suppose Islamic jihadists are just Muslims who won't shut up and stay in the background too, but that description scarcely captures the difference.
The most obvious legacy of the New Atheism is a generation or two of ostensible atheists who have no clue what they are talking about and have embraced their atheism without ever actually giving a thought to the existence or nonexistence of God. They accept that there is no God in precisely the same way and at precisely the same level that they accept there is no Tooth Fairy - and they are proud of it. This was exactly the goal the New Atheists were aiming at. But now the New Atheism is dying, and we can only hope these folks will eventually grow up and do some thinking.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
